Jump to content

Why are people afraid to post NM/NA logs?


Cachez

Recommended Posts

They put NA on caches only disabled for a month and once they put a NM on a cache its a ticking clock until they put a NA on that due to lack of maintenance. I am a bit behind on my maintenance at the moment but I do maintain them when I can. I have to prioritise to make visits to missing caches rather than those that are wet or logbook full.

 

Something to consider, you don't need to have over 700 caches. If they become too much to handle, it's time to let them go.

Plus it looks like some cachers in your community are irritated - maybe they're not happy with saturation, maybe they want fewer caches but better quality caches.

Once a cache becomes a chore to go visit and maintain...when you feel irritated that you have to go check on it, it's time to retrieve and archive.

Don't forget to temporary disable caches so you don't waste a cacher's time and gas money - active missing caches, or messy caches won't win you any favours.

 

Link to comment

I've been accused of being "Cache police" for posting N/As and have had COs angrily disagree with N/Ms I've posted. I've also had some extremely rude and disparaging remarks made about caches I've laid (including my first series).

 

But - that's just people and personalities. Anything that has a degree of anonymity about it encourages a certain keyboard warrior aspect and my view is you've just not go to take this stuff personally. It hasn't stopped me doing what I think is responsible and in the interests of geocaching. (Not reporting caches that hurt our reputation through bad placement or those that are not maintained is condoning it, imo. Groundspeak have a reasonably good system for dealing with this problem and people should use it.)

 

But some people do take it personally, some people don't want to rock the boat, some are unsure of themselves or the rules, or the systems in place to deal with it, some are just too plain *nice* to raise what amounts to a complaint. That's fine too.

 

I do wish everyone would post a DNF when they have one though though...

Link to comment

I won't put NM/NA on:

 

on a cache where the CO is active and will maintain it.

 

How does the owner know it needs maintenance if nobody says anything?

 

Before it gets to the point of NM, let along NA, usually the logs will start mentioning things like the log is wet, the container is cracked ...

Owners: Read the logs and react to them as needed.

Cachers: Write meaningful logs and let the owners know about the experience.

Link to comment

I won't put NM/NA on:

 

on a cache where the CO is active and will maintain it.

 

How does the owner know it needs maintenance if nobody says anything?

 

Before it gets to the point of NM, let along NA, usually the logs will start mentioning things like the log is wet, the container is cracked ...

Owners: Read the logs and react to them as needed.

Cachers: Write meaningful logs and let the owners know about the experience.

 

I doubt an owner with 300 caches is going to read all the logs. I know very responsive CO's with thousands of caches. There's no way they read the logs. They will, however, take note of an NM.

 

So much of this conversation sounds like "why would I put gas in my car when I can just push it with an empty tank." If the cache needs maintenance, log the NM and forget about it.

Link to comment

I won't put NM/NA on:

 

on a cache where the CO is active and will maintain it.

How does the owner know it needs maintenance if nobody says anything?

Before it gets to the point of NM, let along NA, usually the logs will start mentioning things like the log is wet, the container is cracked ...

Why depend on the CO carefully reading each and every found log, no matter how many they get in a day, when there's a perfectly good mechanism for reporting maintenance issues in a way that doesn't get lost in the day-to-day logging? And it flags the cache so the CO can't forget that there's an unresolved issue.

 

Amen ! Give that man a medal. The majority of people who slap needs maintenance on caches are those people who haven't gone to the time of setting them themselves. Yes I am one of the COs who considers a NM an insult. Especially in the local area when a certain someone insists on putting NA on a cache only disabled for a month. We even have locals going round sticking NM for listed TBs not being in the cache.

I'm glad that someone that's part of the problem has joined the conversation.

 

I don't mind you contesting mistaken or incompetent NMs. Feel free to educate people that make such mistakes. The problem is when you announce that NMs are inherently insulting. Even people making these absurd mistakes aren't trying to be insulting. So stop inventing a problem and view the NMs as the impartial source of information they're designed to be and stop taking them personally. NMs are an effective tool, and I'm going to continue using them and encourage other people to use them no matter how upset you make yourself each time you receive one.

Link to comment

I won't put NM/NA on:

 

on a cache where the CO is active and will maintain it.

 

How does the owner know it needs maintenance if nobody says anything?

 

Before it gets to the point of NM, let along NA, usually the logs will start mentioning things like the log is wet, the container is cracked ...

Owners: Read the logs and react to them as needed.

Cachers: Write meaningful logs and let the owners know about the experience.

 

If the log is wet and the cache is cracked, it needs maintenance. Use the NM log.

Link to comment

In my local area a NM is a death sentence to a cache. :(

Could you be more specific? What in your local area prevents a CO from fixing a cache and posting an OM before it is archived? It's hard to believe this isn't an easily resolved issue that could be taken care of, so I'm hard pressed to see it as a reason to stop using NMs in general or to be insulted when they are used.

Link to comment

Actually, in my area, Reviewers are known to pro-actively search using GSAK for caches that have problems and will temp-suspend and give a few weeks for the CO to sort or respond.

 

I really like this system, especially as so many COs leave the game without tidying up after themselves. It all helps to promote a healthy and active hobby that gives a good impression, especially to new cachers.

I disagree. It gives new cachers the impression that geocaching.com is responsible for the quality of caches. There's nothing healthy about that, and it's more passive than active. I don't see a good reason for reviewers to waste time looking at logs when seekers naturally look at logs way more often and should be just as capable as reviewers to recognize a problem that needs to be raised. Seekers will see the problem sooner than a reviewer doing sweeps would, and the seekers can take into account and report local conditions.

 

I'm glad that some reviewers don't mind doing sweeps, but it annoys me when a community avoids its responsibility by depending on reviewers to discover what seekers aren't reporting.

 

And all that's ignoring the even more important point that NMs are exchanges within the community, keeping individuals in touch. That's the sign of a healthy hobby, not some higher authority declaring unilaterally from outside the community that a cache has a problem.

Link to comment

Actually, in my area, Reviewers are known to pro-actively search using GSAK for caches that have problems and will temp-suspend and give a few weeks for the CO to sort or respond.

 

I really like this system, especially as so many COs leave the game without tidying up after themselves. It all helps to promote a healthy and active hobby that gives a good impression, especially to new cachers.

I disagree. It gives new cachers the impression that geocaching.com is responsible for the quality of caches. There's nothing healthy about that, and it's more passive than active. I don't see a good reason for reviewers to waste time looking at logs when seekers naturally look at logs way more often and should be just as capable as reviewers to recognize a problem that needs to be raised. Seekers will see the problem sooner than a reviewer doing sweeps would, and the seekers can take into account and report local conditions.

 

I'm glad that some reviewers don't mind doing sweeps, but it annoys me when a community avoids its responsibility by depending on reviewers to discover what seekers aren't reporting.

 

And all that's ignoring the even more important point that NMs are exchanges within the community, keeping individuals in touch. That's the sign of a healthy hobby, not some higher authority declaring unilaterally from outside the community that a cache has a problem.

 

On the contrary. It gives new cachers the impression that Groundspeak is holding COs accountable for their caches that they agreed to maintain and, if archived, remove from the site. That happens here in the Atlanta area and it certainly gets rid of a lot of crap caches. If the CO can't even be bothered to respond with a simple Note, then they have no business owning a cache.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

Actually, in my area, Reviewers are known to pro-actively search using GSAK for caches that have problems and will temp-suspend and give a few weeks for the CO to sort or respond.

 

I really like this system, especially as so many COs leave the game without tidying up after themselves. It all helps to promote a healthy and active hobby that gives a good impression, especially to new cachers.

I disagree. It gives new cachers the impression that geocaching.com is responsible for the quality of caches. There's nothing healthy about that, and it's more passive than active. I don't see a good reason for reviewers to waste time looking at logs when seekers naturally look at logs way more often and should be just as capable as reviewers to recognize a problem that needs to be raised. Seekers will see the problem sooner than a reviewer doing sweeps would, and the seekers can take into account and report local conditions.

 

I'm glad that some reviewers don't mind doing sweeps, but it annoys me when a community avoids its responsibility by depending on reviewers to discover what seekers aren't reporting.

 

And all that's ignoring the even more important point that NMs are exchanges within the community, keeping individuals in touch. That's the sign of a healthy hobby, not some higher authority declaring unilaterally from outside the community that a cache has a problem.

 

I'm voting this my post of the day - well said that man B)

 

When I first read about geocaching and decided it sounded like something I'd like to be involved in, this was the sort of attitude and approach that I expected from the community - but it is an attitude that seems sadly scarce sometimes. Or perhaps it is just that its antagonists tend to speak louder than its advocates :(

Link to comment

I would like to see some more enforcement of CO-disabled caches. There have been quite a few I've seen which have been disabled for months before the reviewer steps in. Not that I necessarily think that's the reviewer's job, but perhaps some kind of auto-archive functionality where if a cache has been disabled for longer than x months with no note from the CO, it gets archived automatically?

Link to comment

I would like to see some more enforcement of CO-disabled caches. There have been quite a few I've seen which have been disabled for months before the reviewer steps in. Not that I necessarily think that's the reviewer's job, but perhaps some kind of auto-archive functionality where if a cache has been disabled for longer than x months with no note from the CO, it gets archived automatically?

 

You can't set a limit like that. For example, many parks near me have periodic controlled deer hunts. The Parks service requires that geocaches be disabled during this period. Sometimes, it runs from the start of October until the last day of December. If the CO takes a week or two to re-enable, you would archive his caches.

 

Or how abnout the case where a cache is hidden in a tree...a tree that will be left alone while the parks department bulldozes and re-landscapes the area.

 

Communicating with a real living human being who can make an informed decision is important.

Link to comment
Or how abnout the case where a cache is hidden in a tree...a tree that will be left alone while the parks department bulldozes and re-landscapes the area.

 

Communicating with a real living human being who can make an informed decision is important.

Yep. I had a cache that was temporarily disabled for several months. Initially, construction was supposed to take a couple months. But delays extended that, and when the construction fences finally came down, it turned out that something changed that I was told would not change, and I needed to rework the design of my camouflage.

 

Please, no auto-archiving.

Link to comment

It gives new cachers the impression that Groundspeak is holding COs accountable for their caches that they agreed to maintain and, if archived, remove from the site.

I would rather new cachers see the community holding COs accountable. And I want new and old cachers both to recognize that input about the experiences of someone actually interesting in finding the cache is much more important and will be much more timely than the guesses from some external monitor.

 

That happens here in the Atlanta area and it certainly gets rid of a lot of crap caches. If the CO can't even be bothered to respond with a simple Note, then they have no business owning a cache.

The thing I don't understand is why you consider it better for a reviewer to discover problems and file the appropriate logs rather than a member of the community. Community participation will clean up crap caches faster than a reviewer can, and it does it on so many levels, all much healthier than the reviewer's whip.

Link to comment

I would like to see some more enforcement of CO-disabled caches. There have been quite a few I've seen which have been disabled for months before the reviewer steps in. Not that I necessarily think that's the reviewer's job, but perhaps some kind of auto-archive functionality where if a cache has been disabled for longer than x months with no note from the CO, it gets archived automatically?

Is this really a big problem? I see a cache go disabled for a few months maybe 2 or 3 times a year, so it's never bothered me that the reviewers give people plenty of slack. If you think the cache has been disabled too long, post a note or NM asking about it. If you get no response, file an NA yourself. Problem solved. No need hand the power of this issue over to a machine.

Link to comment

It gives new cachers the impression that Groundspeak is holding COs accountable for their caches that they agreed to maintain and, if archived, remove from the site.

I would rather new cachers see the community holding COs accountable. And I want new and old cachers both to recognize that input about the experiences of someone actually interesting in finding the cache is much more important and will be much more timely than the guesses from some external monitor.

 

That happens here in the Atlanta area and it certainly gets rid of a lot of crap caches. If the CO can't even be bothered to respond with a simple Note, then they have no business owning a cache.

The thing I don't understand is why you consider it better for a reviewer to discover problems and file the appropriate logs rather than a member of the community. Community participation will clean up crap caches faster than a reviewer can, and it does it on so many levels, all much healthier than the reviewer's whip.

 

Because people seem content to let crap caches be crap. I'm not. I do my part, but I'm happy that the Reviewers are there and have my back.

Link to comment

Edited to add:

 

I'll happily put NM / NA on a cache where the cache owner has blatantly given up and no longer maintains their caches.

 

I won't put NM/NA on:

 

an old cache say on a summit or within a zone where future permission is now completely impossible for example Kinder Scout in the Peak Disrict

 

on a cache where the CO is active and will maintain it.

 

I own 780 caches however they aren't series caches or classic numbers power trails. A lot of them don't get found for a long time once the locals have them so are bound to get wet in between visits. I have had a cache trasher on my case for about a year who goes round nicking any random cache I have. Unfortunately in the area where my caches have been set there are over zealous locals intent on having every cache archived they find. They put NA on caches only disabled for a month and once they put a NM on a cache its a ticking clock until they put a NA on that due to lack of maintenance. I am a bit behind on my maintenance at the moment but I do maintain them when I can. I have to prioritise to make visits to missing caches rather than those that are wet or logbook full.

 

A recent log from one of your 780 caches......

The Magna Defender

 

prem_user.gifPremium Member

 

952abc9b-bb0f-44da-b0f5-923bbe8c8e15.jpg

 

found.png14569

 

5.png Archive 11/09/2014 There you are you got your wish. This series was put out as a trial as to whether it's worth placing caches in the future. The series has been well received and I thank everyone who found it but my experiment has showed me it's not worth putting out caches anymore due to people stealing the containers who I know are premium members and also the sarcastic caching police such as LFC4eva. Logging a needs maintenance and an archive when it's not even a month old.

 

I may place caches in the future but they will be far away from this area where the cache trashers and caching police won't get them.

 

This log and the others in this example are the reason for this thread.

 

 

I sincerely hope that you are NOT a player account for a Reviewer. If you are, this game is so far in the toilet, that Jeremy will need a 100 metre tube, just to escape the turds floating in this cesspool.

 

 

Link to comment

NM, just means that, in the cacher's opinion, the cache needs some maintenance. It's simply a way to let the CO know there might be something wrong with the cache.

What in the world could be wrong with that? And the notification only goes to the CO, who can take appropriate action.

 

With a quarter of the caches I've found, a "needs maintenance" log means a half-day or more of effort from the cache owner to follow up on it. I'm not going to ask that level of effort from someone on a "might". I'll only log an NM on one of those when I'm certain there's something wrong with it.

 

Amen ! Give that man a medal. The majority of people who slap needs maintenance on caches are those people who haven't gone to the time of setting them themselves. Yes I am one of the COs who considers a NM an insult. Especially in the local area when a certain someone insists on putting NA on a cache only disabled for a month. We even have locals going round sticking NM for listed TBs not being in the cache.

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree with both of you. A NM is not an insult, it is simply the judgment of the finder. I wish people would use NMs more often. As the owner of 300+ active caches I receive numerous logs weekly. I used to read every one because they provided information about my cache, but these days most are simply "TFTC" or "found it", "#5 of 20 today" or similar rote logs, so I rarely look at them anymore. A NM catches my attention however. It doesn't take me a half day or more of effort. It takes me about 30 seconds to decide if it might be valid. If I think it's possibly valid, I schedule a maint trip. If I think the NM log is nonsense, I ignore it. Easy peasy.

Link to comment

I agree with the previous post. I posted a NM today on a cache that the last 6 or so posts stated the container is broken. What made me make the NM is that the log was full and kind hearted cachers, instead of saying come and fix your cache were slipping pages out of note pads as a band aid to a broken cache and mentioning it in their posts. Realistically, and consider this as constructive criticism, if my cache was in such disrepair and I received a NM post, I would appreciate that someone took the time to let me know and I would not take it as disrespect or offensive. Rather as a wake up call that I need to check my caches.

I would also like to point out that if you, as a CO consider that trivial matters which take half a day to sort out are an issue, you definitely need to ask yourself why did I plant that cache if I am not prepared to look after it. And please respect the comment and no sledging because if you feel you need to, go back and revisit Goecaching101. It is all explained there.

Link to comment

I'm brand new to Geocaching (a month or so) but already bought a premium membership. Because I'm new and still learning, I'm personally hesitant to mark a cache with anything negative. I don't want my learning curve to cause issues for other cachers because I don't yet fully understand something. I don't have a big problem posting an NM if that's the case, though I usually just take the time to do non-owner maintenance while I'm there instead. I'll then log a find and detail in the note what I fixed.

 

As for posting an NA, I presently avoid it altogether because it's my understanding that many things have to happen before a reviewer will archive a cache. Again, I don't want to potentially waste the reviewer's time with an NA because for example, unbeknownst to me, not all prerequisites have been met.

 

I do have a question about DNFs though. I never post a DNF unless I have spent significant time at the GZ and searched absolutely thoroughly. When I do post a DNF, it's because I'm personally convinced the cache is missing. If I run out of time or have not aggressively searched, I don't log a DNF. I will log a note instead stating that I could not find it but would return later when I have more time to be thorough. My question is, am I using (or not using) DNFs correctly? I'm grateful for any input.

 

Thanks so much!

 

Matthew / connah0047

Link to comment

I agree with the previous post. I posted a NM today on a cache that the last 6 or so posts stated the container is broken. What made me make the NM is that the log was full and kind hearted cachers, instead of saying come and fix your cache were slipping pages out of note pads as a band aid to a broken cache and mentioning it in their posts. Realistically, and consider this as constructive criticism, if my cache was in such disrepair and I received a NM post, I would appreciate that someone took the time to let me know and I would not take it as disrespect or offensive. Rather as a wake up call that I need to check my caches.

I would also like to point out that if you, as a CO consider that trivial matters which take half a day to sort out are an issue, you definitely need to ask yourself why did I plant that cache if I am not prepared to look after it. And please respect the comment and no sledging because if you feel you need to, go back and revisit Goecaching101. It is all explained there.

 

Photo attached of the last cache I slipped a page from my notepad into - as proof of my visit.

 

c860d697-2a83-4831-b570-30b2752f95a1.jpg

 

The cache had no lid, multiple Needs Maintenance logs, the sole contents were a tatty logbook fragment and all the listed TB's were missing.

 

What surprised me more than anything though were the number of people who had logged it and said nothing about the state it was in.

 

Given that it had been that way for over six months I went straight to Needs Archived.

 

The CO never responded.

Link to comment

I do have a question about DNFs though. I never post a DNF unless I have spent significant time at the GZ and searched absolutely thoroughly. When I do post a DNF, it's because I'm personally convinced the cache is missing. If I run out of time or have not aggressively searched, I don't log a DNF. I will log a note instead stating that I could not find it but would return later when I have more time to be thorough. My question is, am I using (or not using) DNFs correctly? I'm grateful for any input.

 

I think that's pretty similar to what most people do, but it is important to be clear that DNF does not stand for "I think the cache is missing." It means "Did Not Find."

 

I like to look at my records and go back to caches I have DNFs on, so I tend to use those logs a bit more freely because they're for my information as well.

 

As long as you write a log that describes the situation, no reasonable person will begrudge a DNF.

Link to comment

 

I do have a question about DNFs though. I never post a DNF unless I have spent significant time at the GZ and searched absolutely thoroughly. When I do post a DNF, it's because I'm personally convinced the cache is missing. If I run out of time or have not aggressively searched, I don't log a DNF. I will log a note instead stating that I could not find it but would return later when I have more time to be thorough. My question is, am I using (or not using) DNFs correctly? I'm grateful for any input.

 

Thanks so much!

 

Matthew / connah0047

 

I believe you're overthinking it. A DNF means simply that you searched for and didn't find the cache, for whatever reason.

Link to comment

 

I do have a question about DNFs though. I never post a DNF unless I have spent significant time at the GZ and searched absolutely thoroughly. When I do post a DNF, it's because I'm personally convinced the cache is missing. If I run out of time or have not aggressively searched, I don't log a DNF. I will log a note instead stating that I could not find it but would return later when I have more time to be thorough. My question is, am I using (or not using) DNFs correctly? I'm grateful for any input.

 

Thanks so much!

 

Matthew / connah0047

 

I believe you're overthinking it. A DNF means simply that you searched for and didn't find the cache, for whatever reason.

 

I'm mostly with the others. There are only three circumstances where I do not log a DNF. One is if I find the cache, the second is if I DNF'd before and feel like this D4+ cache may take a number of visits, and the third is if I felt I didn't honestly look (out of time, got dark, etc.).

Edited by AustinMN
Link to comment

NM, just means that, in the cacher's opinion, the cache needs some maintenance. It's simply a way to let the CO know there might be something wrong with the cache.

What in the world could be wrong with that? And the notification only goes to the CO, who can take appropriate action.

 

With a quarter of the caches I've found, a "needs maintenance" log means a half-day or more of effort from the cache owner to follow up on it. I'm not going to ask that level of effort from someone on a "might". I'll only log an NM on one of those when I'm certain there's something wrong with it.

 

Amen ! Give that man a medal. The majority of people who slap needs maintenance on caches are those people who haven't gone to the time of setting them themselves. Yes I am one of the COs who considers a NM an insult. Especially in the local area when a certain someone insists on putting NA on a cache only disabled for a month. We even have locals going round sticking NM for listed TBs not being in the cache.

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree with both of you. A NM is not an insult, it is simply the judgment of the finder. I wish people would use NMs more often. As the owner of 300+ active caches I receive numerous logs weekly. I used to read every one because they provided information about my cache, but these days most are simply "TFTC" or "found it", "#5 of 20 today" or similar rote logs, so I rarely look at them anymore. A NM catches my attention however. It doesn't take me a half day or more of effort. It takes me about 30 seconds to decide if it might be valid. If I think it's possibly valid, I schedule a maint trip. If I think the NM log is nonsense, I ignore it. Easy peasy.

 

It's nice to see some straight thinking!

NM should certainly be posted if there's something wrong with a cache. Who ever said otherwise? It is NOT an insult! It's not rocket science! A NM used properly simply means the cacher that posted it thinks there is a problem with the cache. That's ALL!

And if a CO doesn't want to take the time to do maintenance on their caches, they shouldn't be hiding them!

Link to comment

I'm brand new to Geocaching (a month or so) but already bought a premium membership. Because I'm new and still learning, I'm personally hesitant to mark a cache with anything negative. I don't want my learning curve to cause issues for other cachers because I don't yet fully understand something. I don't have a big problem posting an NM if that's the case, though I usually just take the time to do non-owner maintenance while I'm there instead. I'll then log a find and detail in the note what I fixed.

 

As for posting an NA, I presently avoid it altogether because it's my understanding that many things have to happen before a reviewer will archive a cache. Again, I don't want to potentially waste the reviewer's time with an NA because for example, unbeknownst to me, not all prerequisites have been met.

 

I do have a question about DNFs though. I never post a DNF unless I have spent significant time at the GZ and searched absolutely thoroughly. When I do post a DNF, it's because I'm personally convinced the cache is missing. If I run out of time or have not aggressively searched, I don't log a DNF. I will log a note instead stating that I could not find it but would return later when I have more time to be thorough. My question is, am I using (or not using) DNFs correctly? I'm grateful for any input.

 

Thanks so much!

 

Matthew / connah0047

Sadly, a lot of people think this way.

DNF simply means you looked for it and didn't find it.

nothing more! Did Not Find.

It was never intended to be a gauge of whether or not, in the searcher's opinion, that the cache was missing.

I would much rather get a DNF on my caches when someone searches and can't find it. I don't expect a cacher to decide for me if my cache is missing. I can do that myself if, after getting a couple of DNF logs on an easy cache, I go out and verify! Please get rid of the idea that there is some shame in saying you can't find even an easy cache! It still doesn't mean the cache is missing ... simply that you Did Not Find it!

A responsible hider will keep track of those logs and react accordingly.

Link to comment

NM, just means that, in the cacher's opinion, the cache needs some maintenance. It's simply a way to let the CO know there might be something wrong with the cache.

What in the world could be wrong with that? And the notification only goes to the CO, who can take appropriate action.

 

With a quarter of the caches I've found, a "needs maintenance" log means a half-day or more of effort from the cache owner to follow up on it. I'm not going to ask that level of effort from someone on a "might". I'll only log an NM on one of those when I'm certain there's something wrong with it.

 

So ... who's asking you to do anything different than just that? Why on earth would you log a NM if you didn't think there was a problem that needed attention?

Are you in the habit of posting frivolous NM logs on roadside caches? I don't think likely, so your statement just supports what I said.

Post a NM when there's something wrong with a cache, wherever it is!

Link to comment

I think one of the answers (and I think there are many different answers/reasons) to the OP's question is illustrated in the reply from connah0047. It is a possible lack of understanding and education.

 

I'm brand new to Geocaching (a month or so) but already bought a premium membership. Because I'm new and still learning, I'm personally hesitant to mark a cache with anything negative. I don't want my learning curve to cause issues for other cachers because I don't yet fully understand something. I don't have a big problem posting an NM if that's the case, though I usually just take the time to do non-owner maintenance while I'm there instead. I'll then log a find and detail in the note what I fixed.

 

As for posting an NA, I presently avoid it altogether because it's my understanding that many things have to happen before a reviewer will archive a cache. Again, I don't want to potentially waste the reviewer's time with an NA because for example, unbeknownst to me, not all prerequisites have been met.

 

I do have a question about DNFs though. I never post a DNF unless I have spent significant time at the GZ and searched absolutely thoroughly. When I do post a DNF, it's because I'm personally convinced the cache is missing. If I run out of time or have not aggressively searched, I don't log a DNF. I will log a note instead stating that I could not find it but would return later when I have more time to be thorough. My question is, am I using (or not using) DNFs correctly? I'm grateful for any input.

 

Thanks so much!

 

Matthew / connah0047

 

An NM by itself is not inherently negative, but the contents of the log may be negative. Stick to the facts about why you think maintenance is required. I am working on the Washington State Parks GeoTour, and the CO's appreciate and respond to NM logs. To complete the GeoTour, there is a stamp in the cache. You have to stamp your passport as proof of a visit. If (when) the stamp goes missing, NM is the way to let the CO know.

 

On this forum, we had a topic on hides that violated the guidelines. What about a similar one that illustrated hides that should have a NM posted. This topic already has two great pictures that show caches that should have an NM posted.

 

Skye.

Link to comment

It gives new cachers the impression that Groundspeak is holding COs accountable for their caches that they agreed to maintain and, if archived, remove from the site.

I would rather new cachers see the community holding COs accountable. And I want new and old cachers both to recognize that input about the experiences of someone actually interesting in finding the cache is much more important and will be much more timely than the guesses from some external monitor.

 

That happens here in the Atlanta area and it certainly gets rid of a lot of crap caches. If the CO can't even be bothered to respond with a simple Note, then they have no business owning a cache.

The thing I don't understand is why you consider it better for a reviewer to discover problems and file the appropriate logs rather than a member of the community. Community participation will clean up crap caches faster than a reviewer can, and it does it on so many levels, all much healthier than the reviewer's whip.

 

Because people seem content to let crap caches be crap. I'm not. I do my part, but I'm happy that the Reviewers are there and have my back.

 

If you could get the participation, sure! Only thing is, with the quantity over quality mentality, we don't get that. Most caches that need maintenance, go on needing maintenance. A participant who throws out a container or replaces a logsheet in a leaky container is not helping. More often than not, logging something like "log is wet", gets very little attention from owners. Reviewers shouldn't have to perform this duty but luckily they're here to help with it. For now, a NM is one of the better ways to get the ball rolling and get results.

Link to comment

 

I do have a question about DNFs though. I never post a DNF unless I have spent significant time at the GZ and searched absolutely thoroughly. When I do post a DNF, it's because I'm personally convinced the cache is missing. If I run out of time or have not aggressively searched, I don't log a DNF. I will log a note instead stating that I could not find it but would return later when I have more time to be thorough. My question is, am I using (or not using) DNFs correctly? I'm grateful for any input.

 

Thanks so much!

 

Matthew / connah0047

 

I believe you're overthinking it. A DNF means simply that you searched for and didn't find the cache, for whatever reason.

 

I overthink it too. I don't log a DNF if I feel the reason I didn't find it is irrevelent, and the log is not helpful to others. E.g. if before I can even start to look (but after I press "go") I get a call saying there is an emergency at home.

 

For me a DNF does NOT mean "I'm convinced it's not there", as I'm hardly ever convinced of that. But it does mean I gave it some reasonable effort, or something relevent stopped me (e.g muggles, couldn't access it as the bridge was out, etc).

 

Do what seems right for you.

Link to comment
I do have a question about DNFs though. I never post a DNF unless I have spent significant time at the GZ and searched absolutely thoroughly. When I do post a DNF, it's because I'm personally convinced the cache is missing. If I run out of time or have not aggressively searched, I don't log a DNF. I will log a note instead stating that I could not find it but would return later when I have more time to be thorough.
If I reach ground zero and search for the cache, then I log either a Find or a DNF.

 

I am rarely convinced that the cache is missing, and many of the times when I have been convinced that the cache was missing, I've been wrong. All I really know is that I arrived at GZ, searched for the cache, and did not find it.

 

If I don't reach GZ, or if I reach GZ but don't really search, then I'll post a DNS (Did Not Search) as a Note. Or if I'm working on a multi-cache that is taking me multiple days/trips, and I completed the portion I planned to complete but did not yet find the cache, then I'll post a Note.

 

As you probably see from the other replies, different people handle different situations differently. Some would post a DNF when I wouldn't (e.g., when they didn't reach GZ). Some would post a Note (or nothing at all) when I would post a DNF.

Link to comment

I'm brand new to Geocaching (a month or so) but already bought a premium membership. Because I'm new and still learning, I'm personally hesitant to mark a cache with anything negative.

I think I'm going against the current when I say, "Good for you!" I encourage newbies to keep in mind that there are lots of things they don't know, so they should err on the side of caution. Not only that you may be wrong that there's a maintenance issue to begin with, but even if you have identified a maintenance issue correctly, you might not have enough experience to describe it well, so it's OK to leave it to the next experienced cacher to report. There's no desperate need for the very first seeker discovering a problem to report it.

 

On the other hand, the very fact that you're hesitant about your inexperience makes me think you probably have enough experience that your NMs would be fine at this point.

 

As for posting an NA, I presently avoid it altogether because it's my understanding that many things have to happen before a reviewer will archive a cache. Again, I don't want to potentially waste the reviewer's time with an NA because for example, unbeknownst to me, not all prerequisites have been met.

And, again, good thinking. But, for future reference after you have more confidence, let me mention that the NA is merely one of the prerequisites, not really its own conclusion that requires the others to be completed. NA merely says there is reason to believe the cache should be archived, but the actual forced archive done by the reviewer is the only point at which all the angles have been considered, including some angles that you as the NA poster might never be privy to.

 

I do have a question about DNFs though. I never post a DNF unless I have spent significant time at the GZ and searched absolutely thoroughly. When I do post a DNF, it's because I'm personally convinced the cache is missing. If I run out of time or have not aggressively searched, I don't log a DNF. I will log a note instead stating that I could not find it but would return later when I have more time to be thorough. My question is, am I using (or not using) DNFs correctly? I'm grateful for any input.

Even with DNFs, I don't generally run with the pack when I like that newbies tend to be nervous about filing DNFs. A newbie DNF means so much less that most DNFs, and normally has so little information, that they sometimes do more harm than good. So particularly in an area where caches are regularly sought, I'm not worried about missing the occasional newbie DNF because of a lack of confidence. So I applaud your decision to post DNFs only after a thorough search. That's the best compromise to insure you don't unwittingly post a DNF that suggests a cache is missing when any experienced cacher would find it in a minute.

 

As you get more experience -- and, to be honest, I think you've already reached this point -- DNFs are a matter of taste. What you do is fine, and many experienced cachers don't even file DNFs under those conditions. Many of us file what you might call more frivolous DNFs. For example, I basically always file when if I get to GZ, and in some cases even when I don't. The main thing is for the DNF to convey useful information, and the important way to do that is to explain what the DNF actually means for this particular search. So for example, I might post a DNF if I unexpectedly encounter an unscalable fence 200' from GZ if I think it would be helpful for others to know that that barrier is there when GZ is approached from that direction. But it does no good unless I explain my approach and where I ran into the fence.

Link to comment

I'm brand new to Geocaching (a month or so) but already bought a premium membership. Because I'm new and still learning, I'm personally hesitant to mark a cache with anything negative.

I think I'm going against the current when I say, "Good for you!" I encourage newbies to keep in mind that there are lots of things they don't know, so they should err on the side of caution. Not only that you may be wrong that there's a maintenance issue to begin with, but even if you have identified a maintenance issue correctly, you might not have enough experience to describe it well, so it's OK to leave it to the next experienced cacher to report. There's no desperate need for the very first seeker discovering a problem to report it.

 

On the other hand, the very fact that you're hesitant about your inexperience makes me think you probably have enough experience that your NMs would be fine at this point.

 

As for posting an NA, I presently avoid it altogether because it's my understanding that many things have to happen before a reviewer will archive a cache. Again, I don't want to potentially waste the reviewer's time with an NA because for example, unbeknownst to me, not all prerequisites have been met.

And, again, good thinking. But, for future reference after you have more confidence, let me mention that the NA is merely one of the prerequisites, not really its own conclusion that requires the others to be completed. NA merely says there is reason to believe the cache should be archived, but the actual forced archive done by the reviewer is the only point at which all the angles have been considered, including some angles that you as the NA poster might never be privy to.

 

I do have a question about DNFs though. I never post a DNF unless I have spent significant time at the GZ and searched absolutely thoroughly. When I do post a DNF, it's because I'm personally convinced the cache is missing. If I run out of time or have not aggressively searched, I don't log a DNF. I will log a note instead stating that I could not find it but would return later when I have more time to be thorough. My question is, am I using (or not using) DNFs correctly? I'm grateful for any input.

Even with DNFs, I don't generally run with the pack when I like that newbies tend to be nervous about filing DNFs. A newbie DNF means so much less that most DNFs, and normally has so little information, that they sometimes do more harm than good.

 

What?? DNF means Did Not Find. Whether it is a new cacher or someone with 1000 or 10,000 finds...I came, I looked, I did not find. Period. When I had less than 200 finds I easily found one cache that had been DNF'd by three cachers in a row that combined had over 50,000 finds. You want to make their DNF's worth more than my signed log?

 

If there is harm being done by a newbie DNF, the harm is being done by someone else, not the newbie.

Link to comment

NM, just means that, in the cacher's opinion, the cache needs some maintenance. It's simply a way to let the CO know there might be something wrong with the cache.

What in the world could be wrong with that? And the notification only goes to the CO, who can take appropriate action.

 

With a quarter of the caches I've found, a "needs maintenance" log means a half-day or more of effort from the cache owner to follow up on it. I'm not going to ask that level of effort from someone on a "might". I'll only log an NM on one of those when I'm certain there's something wrong with it.

 

Amen ! Give that man a medal. The majority of people who slap needs maintenance on caches are those people who haven't gone to the time of setting them themselves. Yes I am one of the COs who considers a NM an insult. Especially in the local area when a certain someone insists on putting NA on a cache only disabled for a month. We even have locals going round sticking NM for listed TBs not being in the cache.

 

Edited to add:

 

I'll happily put NM / NA on a cache where the cache owner has blatantly given up and no longer maintains their caches.

 

I won't put NM/NA on:

 

an old cache say on a summit or within a zone where future permission is now completely impossible for example Kinder Scout in the Peak Disrict

 

on a cache where the CO is active and will maintain it.

 

I own 780 caches however they aren't series caches or classic numbers power trails. A lot of them don't get found for a long time once the locals have them so are bound to get wet in between visits. I have had a cache trasher on my case for about a year who goes round nicking any random cache I have. Unfortunately in the area where my caches have been set there are over zealous locals intent on having every cache archived they find. They put NA on caches only disabled for a month and once they put a NM on a cache its a ticking clock until they put a NA on that due to lack of maintenance. I am a bit behind on my maintenance at the moment but I do maintain them when I can. I have to prioritise to make visits to missing caches rather than those that are wet or logbook full.

 

Firstly may I say hi to all on here and I hope you are all well.

 

I have been here before but I don't recall if I have ever felt the need to post before now, my time is divided between several interests and forums only get visited briefly.

 

I also apologise to all who I may have slighted by not quoting every post but I only copied and pasted the two main ones that are obviously sited at my good self.

 

I currently have thirty six listed caches, unfortunately only thirty four are still active as two got to be too costly and time consuming to actively maintain. I struggle to actively maintain all of those but Mr TMD has claimed in the past, on one of his profile descriptions, that he actively maintains all of his near eight hundred caches. To be fair some of his caches have been archived and slightly more than two, but that leaves in excess of probably five hundred active caches. Now well thought out caches that have had some planning and a reason for being there I like. A “had a spare pot in the bag while passing” I don't like as those types of hides are not what geocaching is all about.

 

Yes; I did stick a NA on The Plague Pits of Rivington http://coord.info/GC480NT as it hadn't been found for months and as usual the CO (TMD) had not performed any maintenance on a simple drive by. As the bully he tries to be he then posted a NA on my Chirp Parking in Rivington http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=5835153a-1b1b-45ea-ba41-436a43040e35 that I had only just disabled due to an active maintenance visit when I found that the final had gone missing.

 

That tit for tat ended in a “carp” drive by micro, easy to maintain, being archived; while a custom made hide, taking several hours of input was maintained within about two weeks. While maintaining Chirp Parking I then had the unfortunate experience to encounter HH10 - Hidden Corner https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC4Z88C&title=hh10-hidden-corner&guid=1b5426d2-a668-4050-9d22-1d252945c6e1 . I spent a good deal of time looking for it, I prefer to go caching “on the hoof”; if it's in the GPSr I will look for it. I also go in “blind” so without any preconceptions but having an Oregon I have the paperless options available if needed.

 

I failed to find that cache and the DNF is there for all to see. I didn't post a NM at the time, not for fear but to see if the DNF would initiate some sort of maintenance visit. The log was specific and quite detailed so the CO should have known I had been, found nothing and the cache was missing. In return there was a snidey post insinuating that I couldn't find a very easy cache.

 

That obviously resulted in a NM post, several of them in fact as I name The Magner Defender as a complete liar and a fraud. He doesn't actively maintain his caches, at best he reactively maintains his caches. I have no fear about posting a NM or a NA post on any cache that deserves it but The Magner Defender is the sort of bullying CO who does discourage that sort of post. My last post on HH10 - Hidden Corner https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC4Z88C&title=hh10-hidden-corner&guid=1b5426d2-a668-4050-9d22-1d252945c6e1 was not going to be the last, just a statement of “what's the point?”. The CO was still going to clear the maintenance flag without doing anything to remedy the situation.

 

I want the open fire, pipe, slippers and comfy arm chair that he has because my maintenance is fairly tough.

 

Happy caching.

 

Cheers.

 

Schnuz.

 

Hahaarrgghh yeah goin' to PIRATEMANIA 9 (not that it's been arranged yet, more details in the future)? Be thar or be keel hauled!

The only MEGA PIRATE event in the UK to attend?

 

Hahaarrgghh, be seein' yah thar yah filthy landlubber!

Link to comment

What?? DNF means Did Not Find. Whether it is a new cacher or someone with 1000 or 10,000 finds...I came, I looked, I did not find. Period.

A simple example: "Could not find. By the way, what does the blue question mark mean?"

 

If there were a compelling reason to know that a newbie didn't know about lamp skirts, I'd be worried about discouraging them from logging DNFs. Not that I mind them logging a DNF, I just want them to know that their DNF may be pointless or even silly. The bottom line is that most of us are going to ignore their DNFs, anyway, so they shouldn't worry too much about whether to log them until they have some caches under their belts.

Link to comment

I do have a question about DNFs though. I never post a DNF unless I have spent significant time at the GZ and searched absolutely thoroughly. When I do post a DNF, it's because I'm personally convinced the cache is missing. If I run out of time or have not aggressively searched, I don't log a DNF. I will log a note instead stating that I could not find it but would return later when I have more time to be thorough. My question is, am I using (or not using) DNFs correctly? I'm grateful for any input.

 

My approach is similar to what others have mentioned already. If is actually searched for the cache and couldn't find it, then I'll log a DNF. If I arrive at or near GZ, but don't actually search, then I either don't log anything or I log a 'write note'.

 

Example of the former (DNF log): I search for a cache and don't find it. If it's a night-time search, then I usually note that in my DNF and mention 'it might be easier to find during daylight'. Of course, this mention wouldn't apply to "night caches", but I haven't come across many of those yet.

 

Example of the latter (Write note log): I suspect the cache is hidden on a picnic table in a park. I arrive at the park, but there are people sitting at the picnic table and so I don't even start searching.

Link to comment

You will also find that I wasn't bullying in any way shape or form on HH10. Anyone is free to read through the logs on HH10 and see for themselves.

 

http://coord.info/GC4Z88C

 

You openly accused me on a public forum of being a liar and had a dodgy history in caching.

 

Now who is a bully.

 

May I yet again point out the bulying attempt of your NA post on my Chirp Parking cache? https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=f55c6a0e-1a01-4a50-8205-aec490945b8b ?

 

Cheers,

 

Schnuz.

Link to comment

You will also find that I wasn't bullying in any way shape or form on HH10. Anyone is free to read through the logs on HH10 and see for themselves.

 

http://coord.info/GC4Z88C

 

The tone of your logs for the HH10 cache are quite different from the tone of your logs for the cache K13 noted. Maybe that's the different a year makes.

 

I've never seen logs like any of those in my local area. Seems like there is quite a bit of drama in your neck of the woods.

Link to comment

You will also find that I wasn't bullying in any way shape or form on HH10. Anyone is free to read through the logs on HH10 and see for themselves.

 

http://coord.info/GC4Z88C

 

You openly accused me on a public forum of being a liar and had a dodgy history in caching.

 

Now who is a bully.

 

May I yet again point out the bulying attempt of your NA post on my Chirp Parking cache? https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=f55c6a0e-1a01-4a50-8205-aec490945b8b ?

 

Cheers,

 

Schnuz.

 

Sorry again you miss my point. I usually maintain my caches "eventually". What I don't like is your condescending "the clock is ticking" remarks. I have enough problems replacing the caches that my cache trasher keeps nicking. My NA was childish on your Chirp cache I will admit and was a lapse of my judgement.

 

And yeah its never a dull moment in my local area.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I usually maintain my caches "eventually".

I have to agree with others that it seems like you own too many caches.

 

It also seems like your skin might be a bit too thin to be a cache owner. NM logs are a way of informing the cache owner that the cache has maintenance issues that need to be addressed. They aren't a personal judgement of you. If you think someone giving you a heads-up about problems with your cache is insulting, then cache ownership isn't for you. Seriously, if I posted a Needs Maintenance log containing the following on one of your caches, you'd be insulted?

Just a heads-up, the cache container has a crack in the corner and the inside is getting wet.

Such a note is not passing judgement, but rather is simply alerting you to a problem with your cache. I'm confident in saying that the vast majority of cache owners would wholeheartedly welcome being alerted to such a problem.

 

You will also find that I wasn't bullying in any way shape or form on HH10. Anyone is free to read through the logs on HH10 and see for themselves.

 

http://coord.info/GC4Z88C

No, I wouldn't say your postings on that cache could be considered bullying, but the civility level of your communications could certainly be improved. First, I would suggest snide notes along the lines of "Just because you couldn't find it does not mean it is missing" are unnecessary. The best thing to do after that 5th DNF would have been to either disable it or post a note saying that you'd check on it, and then go check on it. Second, when you had someone other than yourself go check on it, you failed to mention that, which led to some confusion. A better Owner Maintenance log could have been "I had a friend who has previously found it go check it out while I'm away, and they've confirmed it's still in place". This seems to more accurately describe what happened, based on what you eventually revealed in the back-and-forth on the cache listing.

 

My best suggestion would be for both The Magna Defender and schnuz to tone back their logs, since they just seem to be baiting each other and escalating non-issues to absurd levels. We're all in this together and need to work together to keep the database filled with quality, well-maintained caches.

@schnuz, if you try to keep comments about potential maintenance issues factual and leave out any hint of sarcasm, I expect you'll get better results.

@The Magna Defender, please understand that when cachers bring potential issues to your attention, they're generally doing it with the best of intentions and are just trying to help. Accept their input and use it to improve your maintenance processes. You may also want to consider archiving a large number of your caches, because it seems like performing the necessary maintenance on all those caches is just too time-consuming for you at this time.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...